236 A.3d 630
Md.2020Background
- Plaintiff (Starlena Stevenson) lived as an infant in a rental property partly owned by Rochkind and had elevated blood-lead levels while there; she later was diagnosed with ADHD and other neuropsychological problems and sued for lead-related injuries.
- Dr. Cecilia Hall‑Carrington (plaintiff’s pediatrician) opined that lead exposure caused Stevenson’s attentional deficits/ADHD and relied principally on the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (EPA‑ISA).
- The case went to multiple trials; trial courts admitted Dr. Hall‑Carrington’s general and specific causation testimony without Frye‑Reed hearings; juries awarded large damages that were later reduced by statute and retried on damages.
- In Rochkind v. Stevenson (Stevenson I), this Court excluded Dr. Hall‑Carrington’s ADHD causation testimony under Md. R. 5‑702 for lack of sufficient factual basis (insufficient data / analytical gap) and remanded for a new damages trial.
- On remand the circuit court again admitted testimony about attention deficits (avoiding the diagnostic label “ADHD”); the case returned on certiorari raising, inter alia, whether Maryland should adopt Daubert and whether the expert’s specific‑causation opinion was admissible.
- The Court of Appeals (majority) held that Maryland will adopt the Daubert reliability framework (guided by FRE 702 factors) to interpret Md. R. 5‑702, rejected continuing Frye‑Reed as the sole gatekeeper, and remanded for a Rule 5‑702 hearing applying Daubert; a dissent would have retained the existing approach and denied remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stevenson) | Defendant's Argument (Rochkind) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Should Maryland adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony? | Opposed to abandoning Frye‑Reed; but argued expert evidence admissible under either standard. | Urged adoption of Daubert; more flexible, focuses on methodology/reliability. | Yes. Court adopts Daubert/Kumho factors to interpret Md. R. 5‑702 and eliminates duplicative Frye‑Reed requirement. |
| 2) Was Dr. Hall‑Carrington’s specific‑causation opinion admissible under Md. R. 5‑702 applying Daubert? | Argues her methodology (records review + EPA‑ISA extrapolation) supplied sufficient factual basis and reliable method. | Argues she lacked a reliable methodology to tie population epidemiology to this individual (analytical gap). | Remanded for a pretrial Rule 5‑702 reliability hearing applying Daubert factors (trial court abused discretion by failing to hold such a hearing). |
| 3) Was it error to allow testimony attributing attentional/behavioral injuries to lead when plaintiff had an ADHD diagnosis? | Stevenson: expert provided a sufficient differential/causal analysis and substantial‑factor rationale despite ADHD diagnosis. | Rochkind: the ADHD diagnosis and alternative explanations required a reliable method to distinguish causes; expert failed to do so. | Court did not decide the ultimate admissibility on the merits; remanded for Daubert/Rule 5‑702 analysis to test whether the expert adequately bridged the analytical gap. |
| 4) Was it error to base specific causation on general epidemiological studies (EPA‑ISA)? | EPA‑ISA and related studies can support extrapolation to specific causation if expert is qualified to interpret and apply them. | EPA‑ISA warns against applying population associations to individuals; relying solely on it is insufficient. | Not resolved on merits; the majority held that epidemiological studies can be considered but a Daubert reliability inquiry is required on whether extrapolation to this plaintiff is justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 (Md. 1978) (Maryland adopted Frye general‑acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (FRE 702 requires a reliability inquiry and enumerated non‑exclusive factors)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (courts may exclude expert opinions where there is an analytical gap between data and conclusions)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, not only “scientific”)
- Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md. 575 (Md. 2009) (applied analytical‑gap reasoning under Maryland law when evaluating causation opinions)
- Rochkind v. Stevenson, 454 Md. 277 (Md. 2017) (Stevenson I) (held Dr. Hall‑Carrington’s ADHD causation testimony lacked sufficient factual basis under Md. R. 5‑702)
- Savage v. State, 455 Md. 138 (Md. 2017) (discussed Frye‑Reed drift and contained concurrence urging adoption of Daubert)
- Sugarman v. Liles, 460 Md. 396 (Md. 2018) (distinguished Stevenson I; held EPA‑ISA could support certain general‑causation opinions when expert adequately extrapolates)